ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2025
Patient-specific instrumentation in primary total shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigation-recorded plan execution in augmented total shoulder arthroplasty using the Advita GPS system and implant platform.JSES international · 2026Article
- Technological advancements for surgical planning and intraoperative navigation in elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review.JSES international · 2026Review
- Patient-specific instrumentation in shoulder arthroplasty: high tech, low yield?Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has improved implant positioning accuracy. However, whether PSI yields additional clinical benefit compared to standard instrumentation (SI) in the setting of primary TSA (anatomic and reverse) remains unclear.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar were queried through August 2024. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies that compared PSI to SI in TSA (anatomic and reverse). Key outcomes analyzed included adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, and discrepancies between planned and achieved implant positioning.
resultsFive retrospective studies, three randomized controlled trials, and one prospective study met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference in complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.16 to 6.10; P=1.00), reoperation (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.37 to 4.91; P=0.65), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (mean difference [MD], 1.61; 95% CI, -4.08 to 7.30; P=0.58), Constant-Murley Score (MD, 3.06; 95% CI, -3.68 to 9.81; P=0.37), version error (MD, -0.76; 95% CI, -2.51 to 0.99; P=0.40), and inclination error (MD, -2.89; 95% CI, -5.82 to 0.05; P=0.05) between the two groups.
conclusionsThis study found no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes, complication rates, or implant positioning accuracy between PSI and SI in primary TSA. Future randomized controlled trials comparing these two types of instrumentation would be useful to assess whether a benefit exists for PSI in the setting of primary TSA. Level of evidence: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.